FC more FHS clashes (was: BIND and FHS)

[Tomasz Kłoczko]

Dnia 07-03-2006, wto o godzinie 09:37 -0600, Chris Adams napisał(a):
> Once upon a time, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta at gmail.com> said:
> > On 3/6/06, Chris Adams <cmadams at hiwaay.net> wrote:
> > > Does FHS say /usr/lib/sendmail should just exist or that it should be
> > > used _instead of_ /usr/sbin/sendmail?
> > Friendly advice.. it helps to read up on reference material before
> > asking questions... or else you run the risk of having your questions
> > summarily disregarded.
> 
> I asked the question because the original poster said that programs
> calling /usr/sbin/sendmail were wrong.  I didn't think that was the
> intent of the FHS, so I asked the OP to support the claim.

Yes it IS wrong because it is location of installed sendmail binaries.
FHS says something like "do not use directly /usr/sbin/sendmail binary
but use sendmail command line compliant binary (or symlink to this
binary) which must be installed/avalaible in /usr/lib/sendmail".

If in future sendmail will be changed for handle in diffrent way some
command line switches recognize by sendmail binary using arg[0] runed
by /usr/lib/sendmail link/symlink will allow for this program be fully
*backward compatible*.

Sorry but do not try be so silly and try disscuss correctnes or not of
FHS on this list. Please move your doubts to FHS discussion list.
But first finish read with understaniding this specyfication.

FHS was prepared, disscusses and aproved also by RH people. Also be FHS
compliat it was (looks like still only on paper) one of the main RH
developers goal many years ago.
It will be good finish this process by make some neccessary adjustments
in RH/FC distributions .. nothing more.

Again: ANY kind doubts about FHS fist try clarify on FHS forum.

kloczek